The Aug. 19 Press editorial said that the Michigan Legislature should reverse a
recent Michigan Supreme Court decision and take away all local zoning authority
over new Department of Natural Resources (DNR) boat ramps and lake access
facilities. It is ironic that the same newspaper which has had numerous
editorials about the importance of zoning and local control would advocate
abolishing both regarding new DNR lake access sites.
It is important to carefully consider what the Supreme Court decision did not
do. It did not give local municipalities carte blanche authority to deny new DNR
facilities. All zoning decisions must be reasonable.
Furthermore, zoning cannot be utilized to exclude a needed use from a community.
Any zoning denial of a new DNR lake access site would be subject to court
challenge if it were unreasonable, exclusionary or both.
It is not reasonable to assume that all communities will deny new proposed DNR
lake access facilities. Many rural townships (where a large number of lakes are
located) have no zoning or applicable local ordinance, such that the DNR could
proceed automatically. Undoubtedly, many other communities with zoning would
approve a new DNR lake access facility if it is reasonable. Finally, in come
cases, zoning approval will be denied or approved with conditions.
To automatically assume that such denial or conditions would not be justified is
jumping the gun. There are some lakes and areas where DNR facilities would be,
ill-advised , or inappropriate due to severe overcrowding, safety or similar
considerations. In such cases, the local community zoning decision should
stand.. However, if a community acts unreasonably or arbitrarily, court action
by the DNR would be appropriate.
Currently, local zoning governs many necessities and even services or products
involving life or death. All of the following are normally subject to local
zoning—hospitals, manufacturing facilities which make pacemakers, blood banks
and abuse shelters, just to name a few.
|
|
If such essential uses are subject to local regulations, why shouldn’t DNR
boat ramps be also? While increasing public access opportunities to lakes in
highly desirable, it is certainly not a basic necessity.
Your editorial mentioned the legislation passed last year regarding DNR
consultation with various groups and local municipalities. Unfortunately, that
law lacks teeth, and in the end the DNR can still do pretty much as it pleases.
Most lake property owners I have talked to over the years do not oppose public
access to lakes. Rather, they are most concerned about unreasonable and
unregulated public access.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to jettison important issues of
principle (such as local control) when a local zoning regulation or ordinance
impedes their particular sacred cow. Undoubtedly, there are advocates of
hundreds of very good uses and activities who could make passionate arguments
for pre-empting local zoning regulations and removing local control over their
own favored activity. In the past, some groups have obtained special exemptions
from zoning from the Legislature. As a result, the ability of local government
to regulate through zoning is beginning to resemble Swiss Cheese.
The basic question, which must be answered by the community, is whether
decisions over these types of matters should be subject to local control or
whether it will be dictated by Lansing,
RICHARD BROWN, President
Michigan Waterfront Alliance, Fenton
|
